Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Aqua Buddha also opposes drone program (Original Post) stg81 Jan 2014 OP
Therefore Democrats must support it Fumesucker Jan 2014 #1
Actually, ProSense Jan 2014 #2
I also hear he supports ... GeorgeGist Jan 2014 #3
Word on the street is that the OP also breathes DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2014 #4

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
2. Actually,
Fri Jan 17, 2014, 05:23 PM
Jan 2014

"Aqua Buddha also opposes drone program"

....no.

Disappointing those who 'stand with Rand'

By Steve Benen



In March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a high-profile filibuster on the Senate floor, bringing attention to drone strikes and civil liberties questions that too often go ignored. But as the spectacle faded, a problem emerged -- Paul didn't seem to fully understand the issue he ostensibly cares so much about.

The Kentucky Republican wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." Attorney General Eric Holders said the "answer to that question is no." For many involved in the debate, the answer was superficial and incomplete -- who gets to define what constitutes "combat"? what about non-weaponized drones? -- but Paul declared victory and walked away satisfied.

Today, the senator went further, saying he's comfortable with drones being used over U.S. soil if the executive branch decides -- without a warrant or oversight -- there's an "imminent threat." Paul told Fox News:

"...I've never argued against any technology being used when you an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."

I realize it's difficult to explore complex policy questions in detail during a brief television interview, and perhaps if the Republican senator had more time to think about it, he might explain his position differently. But as of this afternoon, it sounds like Rand Paul is comfortable with the executive branch having the warrantless authority to use weaponized drones to kill people on American soil suspected of robbing a liquor store.

But flying over a hot tub is where he draws the line.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/23/17881782-disappointing-those-who-stand-with-rand

Drones to kill people "suspected of robbing a liquor store."



 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
4. Word on the street is that the OP also breathes
Fri Jan 17, 2014, 05:50 PM
Jan 2014

I think that tells all of us what we need to know. If I find out they're both water drinkers, I'll KNOW I'm right.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Aqua Buddha also opposes ...